Zionism

KJV, ESV, NIV, NLT: which should you prefer?

None of the above is the correct answer. Each of them pales in comparison to the original. In the following, I suggest why, exemplifying with KJV Psalm 26:1-3. In translation, Psalm 26:1-3 is a forceful prayer. In Hebrew, it is more forceful still.

Every translation of the Bible, measured against the standard of its source, has strengths and weaknesses. Unless you learn Hebrew and learn it well, so that you read Hebrew without resorting to a dictionary and a grammar, you are not in a position to know what those strengths and weaknesses might be.

The translation strategies of the major English Bible translations are open to criticism. A review of KJV Psalm 26:1-3 will illustrate. Though I will not demonstrate them in this post, I believe three points are incontestable. (1) All extant translations of the Bible fall short of the glory of the original. (2) In the case of both “literal” and “free” translations, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. (3) It remains possible to produce better Bible translations than those that currently exist.

Where and how can existing Bible translations be improved? That is the million-dollar question.

Here is Psalm 26:1-3 in Hebrew:

שָׁפְטֵנִי יְהוָה כִּי־אֲנִי בְּתֻמִּי הָלַכְתִּי

וּבַיהוָה בָּטַחְתִּי לֹא אֶמְעָד׃

בְּחָנֵנִי יְהוָה וְנַסֵּנִי צָרְפָה כִלְיוֹתַי וְלִבִּי׃

כִּי־חַסְדְּךָ לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי וְהִתְהַלַּכְתִּי בַּאֲמִתֶּךָ׃

Here is KJV. I format it according to its punctuation, which reflects the poetic structure of the Hebrew.

Judge me, O Lord,for I have walked in mine integrity:I have trusted also in the Lord; therefore I shall not slide.

KJV is a relatively literal translation. It tends to hew closely to the diction and syntactic structure of the Hebrew. It also exhibits a strong commitment to the principle of translating a given Hebrew word with the same word in English wherever possible. The effort is also made to translate all words of given Hebrew root by words of a common stem in English. This explains the translation of שפטניby judge me. The translation does not quite work in English today. To “judge a person” in today’s English has a negative connotation. The connotation in the source text is neutral. NJB’s “be my judge” captures the sense better than other widely-used translations.

It is not easy to reproduce the sense of syntactic operators like כי and ו in translation.Or the absence of a syntactic operator. In one instance above, KJV renders an absence by therefore. That does a disservice to the poetry. The poetry is important, because that is how one prays in the Bible, with terse, highly charged language in which every word counts, and not one word is superfluous. It is easy to lose touch with one's mother tongue - a read through almost any modern translation of the Bible proves the point abundantly. It is natural to question the use of awkward syntactic operators like “therefore” in imploring direct address to a God of wonder and might. It may be King James English, but is it, was it ever, good English?

I shall not slide isnot a successful translation. Ideally, a single translation, or a set of tightly related translations, will be chosen to translate a verb like מעדsince it occurs in a narrow range of semantic contexts. “Slide” does not come up to this bar.

מעדis best translated as “falter” with a person (Ps 26:1 [here]); Job 12:5), a person’s “steps” (Ps 37:31), and a person’s “leg” (Prov 25:19; cf. Job 12:5) as subject; “turn” when a person’s “ankles” are subject (2 Sam 22:37 = Ps 18:37), and “go wobbly” perhaps, when a person’s “thighs” are subject (Ps 69:24). In contrast to the proposal just made, available translations simply do not keep translation equivalents of this verb within semantic striking distance of each other. Equivalents like “slide,” “trip,” and “slip” are vaguely accurate only. I reach this conclusion on the basis of a pair of principles: (1) with respect to a lexeme’s occurrences within a narrow range of semantic contexts, the lexeme’s core meaning in the range is, all other things being equal, to be situated at the semantic intersection of the aggregate of occurrences; (2) excluding a few rare words, the identified core meaning of an ancient Hebrew lexeme ought to be well-represented in the earliest translations, the ancient Greek versions in particular.

Prove me is a successful context-sensitive translation of נסני, but is not without drawbacks. Verb and syntax are the same as that found in Gen 22:1. The translation equivalent, ideally, would be the same both there and here. How else is the reader to catch the coinherence of the two passages? God tests and proves Avraham; the psalmist, a person who trusts God greatly, invites God to test him and prove him. “Prove” is nice because it stands a chance of provoking thought about the connection between “proving” and “approving,” a connection that is fundamental to both Gen 22 and Ps 26. But “prove” doesn’t quite work as a workhorse translation of נסה.

Free-style translations avoid using a workhorse equivalent across a series of occurrences. They prefer employing a whole stall full of shining ponies. But workhorse equivalents help preserve concordance across what are, objectively speaking, concordant passages. There is something to be said for that.

Try my reins and my heart. “Reins” is archaic language for “kidneys.” I wonder how this came across in the 17th century. Robert Alter succeeds better than most in capturing the concrete ferocity of the Hebrew turn of phrase. He has “Burn pure my conscience and my heart.” It is one of the first attempts in English to capture the specific sense of Ps 26:2 צרף. צרףconjures up images of fire and intense heat burning away impurities. NJB 26:2: "Test my mind and my heart in the fire." צרףalso occurs with the washed-out sense of “separate” (Judg 7:4). But that is not the case here, as a comparison of Ps 26:1-3 with Ps 66:8-12 demonstrates.

KJV’s try in the context of today’s English amounts to a colorless and generalizing equivalent. But it wasn’t so back in the days, when one could speak of “trying” silver. Nevertheless, later translators have given themselves permission to retain “try” as a translation though the word no longer has anything like the set of connotations it once did. No such permission should be granted.

Hebrew “kidneys” poses a challenge to English translators. “Reins / “kidneys” is unintelligible in context to all but the most learned of readers. English is poor in internal body parts freightable with metaphorical weight. It’s not surprising that translations swap out the concrete reference and replace it with a supposedly equivalent abstract substitute, based on pseudo-analysis according to which “kidneys” are the seat of the conscience or the will. Said translation strategy yields “conscience,” “motives,” whatever. But if we take our cue from the fact thatחלב כליות חטה‘the fat of kidneys of wheat’ (Deut 32:14) = ‘the richness of kernel of wheat,’ “core” as a translation presents itself. A metaphor-for-metaphor translation might go like this: “With fire refine my heart and core.” For the sake of intelligibility, I switch the order of “core” and “heart” and forge the pair into a hendiadys.

For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes. “Lovingkindness” beautifully translates חסד, an important term in ancient Hebrew literature. Despite its adoption by KJV, “lovingkindness” hasn’t caught on in the vernacular. That ends up being a negative. The term is widely used in ancient Hebrew literature in the context of interpersonal relationships. חסדhas a depth dimension “lovingkindness” has never acquired in English. Though thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes is somewhat cryptic, it is limpid in the original. “Your kindness is in my eyes’ line of sight” is the admittedly awkward, but somewhat clearer equivalent that comes to mind. A freer translation may be necessary here, something like: “My eyes take in your kindness, I walk in reliance on your faithfulness.”

And I have walked in thy truth. The problem with this translation is that “truth” is a noetic concept in English, whereas the corresponding term in Hebrew, אמת, is, in context, an interpersonal concept. Furthermore, as is well-known, חסד ואמת‘steadfast kindness’ (Gen 24:27, etc.) form a single concept:KJV’s mercy and truth for the syntagm is winsome, but misleading.

Now that I’ve thoroughly discredited KJV, I might go on to do the same with the three other translations mentioned in the title of the post. And I will, but my purpose has already been acheived: to show you that you have no chance of understanding the fine grain of the biblical text unless you know the original languages, and know them well.

This is a really great post about Hebrew. Your conclusion at the end, that you really have to understand the original language (Hebrew), is one that I totally agree with. We should spend more time reading the Scriptures in the language that God gave them, rather than spending hours getting confused over how to translate it.

While I grant without reservation that the original language contains insights that are lost in the best of translations, I would be hesitant to downplay the value of translation to the extent I hear in your post, John. It's kind of like the discussion in a wholly different environment, over which kind of camera is best. While it's empirically true that one camera will capture better detail, highlights, shadows, and nuance than another, a wise photographer has observed that the best camera is the one you have in your hand when you compose and take the great image.

In the same way, the "best" biblical text is the one that gets the seeker or the believer interacting with the divine story. Disciples have been well and truly won to the kingdom, and goaded to holiness and devotion and obedience, through translations you and I would likely agree were hideous. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit doesn't restrict action to the original tongues only. . .

I concur with clayboy, of course. The Septuagint is essential background to the exegesis of the NT authors. They read their Bible in Greek, according to a text approximating the "original" LXX, and/or a revision thereof toward proto-MT.

That just means that, in order to understand the NT in fine detail, a thorough familiarity with the Septuagint and the history of its correction toward the proto-MT (a moving target)is very helpful. One more reason why, if the desire is to understand the Bible at this level of detail, knowledge of the primary sources in the original languages is essential.

Dan,

I concur that it is entirely unnecessary to read the Bible in the original languages in order to receive healing from God and justification by virtue of God's grace through faith. The Holy Spirit accomplishes these things apart from precise information about the fine grain of the biblical text.

But should you want to be able to savor the fine grain of the biblical text, should you want to discuss the pros and cons of existing translations of the Bible measured against the text thereof, it is essential to learn the biblical languages and master the literature in those languages. That's my point.

Bryan,

The time required to acquire the skills necessary to adjudicate between differing translations of the Bible based on cross-examination of the source texts is long. It requires a mastery of detail like that required of a lawyer or a physician. Excellent flesh-and-blood teachers along the way are also essential.

It's possible to study the Bible without a strong grasp of the original languages. But don't fool yourself. It's like kissing a bride through a thick blanket. You won't even be able to feel her lips.

John:
"It's possible to study the Bible without a strong grasp of the original languages. But don't fool yourself. It's like kissing a bride through a thick blanket. You won't even be able to feel her lips."

But if I read everything you had to say about the translation of Psalm 26:1-3 and have all that information in my head when I read a translation of it, or make a translation based on your notes, then what am I missing out on when I read it?

I think a better analogy that the kissing through the sheet one might be the difference between a newlywed who doesn't know everything about his wife (but it's all exciting and new) and someone who's been married for 40 years, who knows everything about his wife, and there's no real surprises left (but it's familiar and comfortable). I'd probably prefer something in the middle ; )

Nice to read the old and the new. What translation does for you if you do it - is to show you how many decisions are made on your behalf by a translator. Your own decisions may be poorer - but at least you know you are making them. Also translation may put one in touch with ancient thought processes - how ancient one may not realize for many years. But as for the reality of the Spirit - best if this is the motivation to translate, and not its purpose - as if by intellect one could apprehend the ultimate. One is most likely to hear and believe in the tongue one was born in, I think. There are no sheets or blankets to worry about. Then in obedience, one might learn something new in the old tongues.

Translation is definitely fun - especially continuing open to correction. Thanks John for these lovely posts. I wonder if the KJV is using creative synonymy partly because concordance is immensely difficult to achieve.

This was my translation of the passage some time ago. I am really happy to have been invited to read it as prayer.

Judge me יְהוָה
for I have walked in my completeness
and in יְהוָה I trust
I will not slip
Try me יְהוָה
and prove me
test my centre and my heart
for your loving kindness is before my eyes
and I myself have walked in your truth

You ask what you are missing out on, in terms of understanding Psalm 26, after reading everything I've said about it, after reading, in addition let's say, half a dozen commentaries.

Believe me, you continue to miss out on a ton of things. It's as if you are at the door of a castle, the drawbridge is down, but you prefer to know only as much about the castle as is possible from the outside.

Bryan, if I had you in my study, and you knew Hebrew well enough to just pick up the text and read it, any passage of interest, and we studied Ps 26 together, we could go at it for hours and hours and continue to learn new things together. Not airy-fairy things, but basic things we wouldn't know without taking the time to learn of them, the contours and specifics of the horizon, the subtext and context and cultural parameters the text expresses and presupposes.

It never is like what your analogy suggests, that in biblical studies, one feels that you know everything about the subject. It really is a science in the best sense of the word. At least, that is how I live it. An answer to a particular question paves the way for a new set of questions. The vista, and the interconnections, simply get wider and wider, and deeper and deeper. Old questions have to reframed, but the most interesting never go completely away.

It's hard enough to attain clear and reliable knowledge about an ancient text like the Bible and the thoughts that are expressed in that text when one is utterly familiar, in the realm of the possible, with the languages in which the text was written, and the cultural expectations the text presupposes.

It is impossible to attain such knowledge without familiarity of the kind noted.

If someone told you that it is possible to be an expert on Roman law of late antiquity without knowing Latin well enough to read the laws without difficulty, without being thoroughly acquainted with the culture the law expresses and presupposes, you would laugh in their face I presume.

A so-called expert in Roman law who reads said law in translation only, and about the ambient culture in translation only, is bound to make elementary mistakes without even realizing it.

A so-called expert in Roman law, even if she knows the laws inside and out in Latin and has also read widely in Latin literature, the Latin historical authors, private letters in Latin, Roman archaeology, and so on, will still make elementary mistakes without realizing it. But surely the chances of doing so diminish.

Once again, it is important to make distinctions. Is it possible for someone to grasp the book of Job without any Hebrew whatsoever? Absolutely, even if, as is the case also for even the most learned scholar, individual passages in the book remain obscure.

But in this case as well, knowing Hebrew and knowing ANE culture acts as a check. It allows one to rule in some interpretations and rule out others with a far greater degree of certainty than would otherwise be possible.

I think your translation has a lot going for it. On reading this series, it won't be hard for you to figure out in what ways we differ in our understanding of the text.

I do not agree with you that the best and perhaps the only language one can hear the Holy Spirit in is one's mother tongue. I do admit that I was not taught to read Hebrew as a medium of communication in which the King of the Universe speaks by Christians. I was taught that by Jewish teachers.

Since Greek and Hebrew are not taught in seminaries as languages of the Most High - only communication in one's mother tongue is allowed to play that role - it is no wonder that the biblical languages are considered a distraction by many students, and their professors, too. They are a distraction, if one never gets to the place of reading the Bible in them and being bowled over by the goodness of God that shines through.

In the world today, there are a few teachers who teach Dante or Cicero or Homer in and from the original languages in terms of "full body contact" - with such a deep love and understanding of the texts, every contour of the language, that it changes the name of the game completely.

There are a few teachers left who love and breathe the biblical texts in the same way. Perhaps, however, the category is disappearing.

I would consider that a crime against humanity.

How many hours of training does a heart surgeon or a constitutional lawyer need to dedicate to their respective fields of study? How many fine details must they master?

Who wants a delicate heart problem to be diagnosed and addressed by anyone other than someone who has acquired and continues to acquire whatever knowledge is of use for that calling? Who wants a Supreme Court justice to sit and decide if she hasn't already drafted hundreds and hundreds of excellently crafted opinions concerning the constitutionality of laws, in accordance with tried and tested procedures and traditions?

No one, I presume.

But we settle for far less when it comes to the Bible. Is it any wonder that it speaks to us so feebly? Or if it does speak to us, it's only because we've made it into our ventriloquist of choice?

John, I do not for a moment wish to suggest that original-language study is either irrelevant or unhelpful (in my limited skill I try myself). I'm merely trying to center the discussion. Though I don't believe it's your intent, I sense in your comments a haughtiness that only those who have the time and resources to pursue original-language study full-time are going to be able to engage meaningfully with the text. Such an attitude can easily lead to the exclusivity of the clergy and academics, which led to the excesses of pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism, and IMHO leads also to the "my way or the highway" attitude of many "pastors" I've known. On the other hand, it can lead the "layman" to a hopelessness that s/he can never approach the text, so why bother.

Your illustration of Latin for Roman law misses a key point, in that nobody who wrote Roman law ever intended a holy body of believers to be engendered and nourished by it. If God's intention was/is different, and I think we both believe it was/is, then the scriptural text becomes a different animal than every other text. . .and the difference is the Breath of God in dialogue with both text and reader.

So I beg you, in appreciating (and teaching others to appreciate) the beauty and nuance of the original languages, be careful not to make the scripture inaccessible to all but the clergy, the academics, and those wealthy enough not to need a profession. The Word of God (I mean the Incarnate Word, not a text) reaches out to the lowly and ignorant as well as the exalted and studied.

I'm fine with what you say, but I fear that the Holy Spirit is an alibi for many people who have the intellectual gifts and the wherewithal to tackle an ancient language or two, but do not, because the ideal is not held up to them, and even if it were, they would reject it.

It has nothing to do with being independently wealthy. I know many laypeople who have mastered an incredible amount of detail and acquired a number of specific skills outside of their day job, because they are avid horsemen, hunters, musicians, or artists.

There is absolutely no reason, on principle, why a number of pastors and laypeople could not put in the requisite amount of study to truly master Greek and Hebrew.

But before anyone would wish to do so, they need to understand the gain associated with the pain. They also need to have access to teachers who set the bar high for them, and have the skill sets needed to do so.

There is absolutely no reason, on principle, why a number of pastors and laypeople could not put in the requisite amount of study to truly master Greek and Hebrew.

True. And they (we) should. I haven't had the time to "master" it, but I've worked a bit on N.T. Greek. I do it precisely because I don't want to be unarmed when someone makes a high-sounding pronouncement about what the originals say.

And therein may lie the problem. Not only do the "laypeople" not see a need (and the lay/clergy distinction is itself actually part of the problem), but many (most?) clergy aren't interested in the level of accountability an educated congregation would offer.

And you're right, the Holy Spirit is used as an excuse for a lot of sloppy thinking. I'm just worried about the opposite error of elitism. We should guard against both.

Dan, I'm impressed that you've taken the time to learn some Greek and would encourage you to work on it until you can pick your Nestle-Aland up and read it without using a dictionary.

It is not at all a popular view, but I think that hierarchy properly understood, in which "authority over" is understood as "authority on behalf of," is a gift and a blessing. So I'm fine with hierarchy of the kind we already as the basis of a common life in the Pastoral Epistles for example.

On the other hand, the most effective way to keep pastors reading their Bible in the original languages is to have some of those in their care familiar with the languages as well. At this point of time, most pastors have given up on Hebrew and Greek even if they did take them in seminary.

Well, I think we may be using the term "hierarchy" in rather different ways, which would account for our different takes. I refer to the notion (I'm sure you're familiar with it) that says "God put me here as shepherd over you, so you should accept my teaching at face value and not question it." That sort doesn't WANT "sheep" in his fold that can and do seek the original-language meaning.

On the other hand, the very notion of different gifts, given to the edification of the body, taken along with submitting ourselves to one another a la Ephesians 5, certainly could be seen in a hierarchical mode I suppose, as long as the leaders remember their own duty to submit. I don't know as I've ever seen it function that way, but I certainly accept the hypothetical possibility.

As for developing my Greek much more, I have a hunch that'll have to wait till the kids are grown & gone; you mention other people developing hobbies and the like. . .I personally wonder how they do it. For now, my hobby is raising my family ;{)

But I come by it honestly, I guess. My Mom & Dad both studied NT Greek (Mom has done her own translation of the New Testament), and actually taught lay-level intros to biblical word study and Greek in churches when I was a kid. If you want to see where I get it from (and see the translation), have a look at http://pioneernt.wordpress.com.

I would like to post about this New Testament on my blog soon. I think it was brought to my attention earlier and I dropped the ball on it. However, I have glanced at it now and there are some great features to it. Thanks.

I see hierarchy realized positively in the life of the church, in the workplace, and in the family, on a daily basis. I see the detrimental effects of what happens when there is an absence of hierarchy on a daily basis.

Authority is a positive concept in the Bible because it is "authority on behalf of." The criterion and context of its realization are the "theological" virtues, faith, hope, and love, the greatest of these being love.

We all know plenty of church leaders, work bosses, and husbands and wives who are abusive in word and deed toward those under their care. This is an argument for getting the exercise of authority right, not for eliminating its exercise altogether.

This is an argument for getting the exercise of authority right, not for eliminating its exercise altogether.

Fair enough, John. I think we are both talking about the difference between authority in a biblical sense (what Greg Boyd describes as "power under") and authoritarianism of the sort Jesus described in Matt. 20:25-28. I have no problem with the kind of authority Jesus set up as a contrast to the earthly sort. I just rarely see it.

I have read thru all the comments. I have been studying the different translations and walk away confused. It is a struggle for me. I want to know exactly what God meant to say. I feel as though I cannot say my Bible, whatever translation, is reliable and true to the original text. I have been to many Christian denominations. Some may consider them conservative (AV 1611 only), and liberal (NIV pew bibles). I have asked around seeking others opinions. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to get the true intended meaning is to translate it for yourself. I have the desire to learn the languages but feel short on time (second coming) and it seems so unrealistic. I am not asking for the easy way out, but desire to know the best way to approach the language? Where do you obtain an original copy of the text? How can I trust those copies?

With my interest and all the questions, I still feel as though things can be gained from reading English translations. I wonder how many of the teachings I have accepted myself are false because of mistranslation? Should I read all English translations as thought for thought and not literally? This seems dangerous.

Jesus may come again tomorrow, but I wouldn't let that stop you from learning Greek and Hebrew, if you have the desire and the patience to do so. As a believer once put it, "Even if knew that the world was going to end tomorrow, I would still plant my apple tree today." That's how it is: we are always called to plant seeds for the future; we are unfaithful if we don't. We will be judged accordingly if we don't.

So long as you can only read the Bible in English, I suggest you read it in two or three translations at once: ESV, NIV, and NLT for example, because each attempts to be faithful to the original texts in a different way.

Over the almost two thousand years that the Bible has been in existence, the people of God have read it in versions with differ among themselves on details, but the core teachings of Moses and Christ are clear in almost any translation available - without a doubt in the translations mentioned above. Things like "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," salvation by grace through faith not works lest any man should boast, 1 Corinthians 13 which tells us that three things, and only three things, are of permanent value, faith, hope, and love, the greatest of these being love.

I wish you the best, Nick. Look around for a good teacher or two, at a local Bible college or university for example. Allow yourself to be mentored by someone who demonstrates humility and the other gifts of the Spirit. You will not be disappointed.

Believing is KnowingComments on things like prophecy, predestination, and reward and punishment from an orthodox Jewish perspective, by David Guttmann

Ben Byerly's Blogthoughts on the Bible, Africa, Kenya, aid, and social justice, by Ben Byerly, a PhD candidate at Africa International University (AIU), in Nairobi, Kenya working on “The Hopes of Israel and the Ends of Acts” (Luke’s narrative defense of Paul to Diaspora Judeans in Acts 16-20)

C. OrthodoxyChristian, Contemporary, Conscientious… or Just Confused, by Ken Brown, a very thoughtful blog (archive). Ken is currently a Dr. Theol. student at Georg-August-Universität in Göttingen, part of The Sofja-Kovalevskaja Research Group studying early Jewish Monotheism. His dissertation will focus on the presentation of God in Job.

Catholic Biblesa thoughtful blog about Bible translations by Timothy, who has a degree in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome (Angelicum) and teaches theology in a Catholic high school in Michigan

Chrisendomirreverent blog with a focus on the New Testament, by Chris Tilling, New Testament Tutor for St Mellitus College and St Paul's Theological Centre, London

Claude Mariottinia perspective on the Old Testament and current events by a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicagoland, Illinois

Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspotby Tyler Williams, a scholar of the Hebrew Bible and cognate literature, now Assistant Professor of Theology at The King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta (archive)

Colours of Scripturereflections on theology, philosophy, and literature, by Benjamin Smith, afflicted with scriptural synaesthesia, and located in London, England

ComplegalitarianA team blog that discusses right ways and wrong ways Scripture might help in the social construction of gender (old archive only; more recent archive, unfortunately, no longer publicly available)

Connected Christianitya place to explore what it might be like if Christians finally got the head, heart, and hands of their faith re-connected (archive)

Conversational TheologySmart and delightful comment by Ros Clarke, a Ph.D. student at the University of the Highlands and Islands, at the (virtual) Highland Theological College (archive)

Daily HebrewFor students of biblical Hebrew and the ancient Near East, by Chip Hardy, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago

Daniel O. McClellana fine blog by the same, who is pursuing a master of arts degree in biblical studies at Trinity Western University just outside of Vancouver, BC.

Davar AkherLooking for alternative explanations: comments on things Jewish and beyond, by Simon Holloway, a PhD student in Classical Hebrew and Biblical Studies at The University of Sydney, Australia

Evedyahuexcellent comment by Cristian Rata, Lecturer in Old Testament of Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, Seoul, Korea

Exegetica Digitadiscussion of Logos high-end syntax and discourse tools – running searches, providing the downloads (search files) and talking about what can be done and why it might matter for exegesis, by Mike Heiser

Law, Prophets, and Writingsthoughtful blogging by William R. (Rusty) Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies as College of the Ozarks and managing editor for Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament

Lingamishdelightful fare by David Ker, Bible translator, who also lingalilngas.

old testament passionGreat stuff from Anthony Loke, a Methodist pastor and Old Testament lecturer in the Seminari Theoloji, Malaysia

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha BlogA weblog created for a course on the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, by James Davila (archive)

On the Main LineMississippi Fred MacDowell's musings on Hebraica and Judaica. With a name like that you can't go wrong.

p.ost an evangelical theology for the age to comeseeking to retell the biblical story in the difficult transition from the centre to the margins following the collapse of Western Christendom, by Andrew Perriman, independent New Testament scholar, currently located in Dubai

PaleoJudaicaby James Davila, professor of Early Jewish Studies at the University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland. Judaism and the Bible in the news; tidbits about ancient Judaism and its context

Serving the Wordincisive comment on the Hebrew Bible and related ancient matters, with special attention to problems of philology and linguistic anthropology, by Seth L. Sanders, Assistant Professor in the Religion Department of Trinity College, Hartford, CT

Targumanon biblical and rabbinic literature, Christian theology, gadgetry, photography, and the odd comic, by Christian Brady, associate professor of ancient Hebrew and Jewish literature and dean of the Schreyer Honors College at Penn State

The Biblia Hebraica Bloga blog about Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the history of the Ancient Near East and the classical world, Syro-Palestinian archaeology, early Judaism, early Christianity, New Testament interpretation, English Bible translations, biblical theology, religion and culture, philosophy, science fiction, and anything else relevant to the study of the Bible, by Douglas Magnum, PhD candidate, University of the Free State, South Africa

Technorati

Terms

Ancient Hebrew Poetry is a weblog of John F. Hobbins. Opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of his
professional affiliations. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents
of Ancient Hebrew Poetry, including all text, images, and other
media, are original and licensed under a Creative
Commons License.